It has recently been revealed what weapons will be fitted to the Type 31 Frigates.

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, stated in response to a written Parliamentary question:

“It is intended that the Type 31 frigate will be equipped with the Sea Ceptor missile system and will be equipped with one Bofors 57mm Mk3 and two Bofors 40mm naval guns, in addition to a range of highly advanced weapon and sensor systems.

These include a sophisticated combat system with 4D air and surface surveillance, target indication radar and the capability to operate a Merlin or Wildcat helicopter.”

Recently, Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace cut the first steel for the first of the Royal Navy’s five new Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer.

Hosted at Babcock’s facility in Rosyth, Scotland, where the Type 31 ‘Inspiration class’ ships are being built, representatives from across UK and international industry and public service, witnessed the historic ceremony signalling the official start of the build programme alongside employees and representatives from the local community.

Steel cut on first Type 31 Frigate HMS Venturer at Rosyth

The event also saw Babcock’s new assembly hall named ‘The Venturer Building’ – paying homage to the first new class of frigates to be built in the facility.

This vast structure measuring 147m x 62m x 42m is capable of housing two Type 31 frigates for parallel build and assembly activity. It will enable uninterrupted assembly, supporting increased productivity gains through improved access and digital connectivity. The new infrastructure forms part of a £60 million investment programme on the site, on top of a further £100 million that has been invested over the last decade.

Babcock CEO David Lockwood said:

“This is a significant moment. We are witnessing what the National Shipbuilding strategy can achieve. Working with our partners and customers, we are creating something we can all be very proud of. The T31 Class will show the adaptability and capability of a modern warship created with British ingenuity and engineering at its core. I’m looking forward to seeing these magnificent vessels emerge from our newly-named Venturer Building.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said on the day:

“Today is a momentous occasion for the Type 31 programme, Defence and the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. As Shipbuilding Tsar, to cut the steel for the first of five new frigates that will be constructed here on our shores in the Firth of the Forth, providing jobs and innovation to the area, is a tremendous honour. Equipped with the technologies at the forefront of the Royal Navy’s future vision, the entire Type 31 fleet will be fitted with a range of capabilities allowing it to undertake a variety of operations at sea.”

A direct UK workforce of around 1,250 people will be employed on the programme at its height, including 150 apprenticeships, and a further 1,250 in the supply chain. This meets the aims of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, by delivering local and national, social and economic benefits through investing in its supply chain and the next generation of apprentice and graduates, whilst sustaining highly skilled workforces in multiple locations throughout the UK.

The first ship is expected to be in the water in 2023 with all five ships delivered by 2028.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

331 COMMENTS

  1. In short, said nothing that wasn’t already known…plus…”in addition to a range of highly advanced weapon…systems”

    • So it’s weapons fit is in addition to a range of highly advanced weapons….umm yes is that what politicians call doubling down on talking Bollox.

          • No Probs Tommo…but indeed. At least the T31 have some redundancy in its main guns. So many of the RN vessels these days seem to have single point of failure risk for critical capabilities…and the SA 80 history is just a reminder that so many things can go wrong, can fail, and usually fail at the time your trying to use them…strangely.🤔🤔

          • In 89 we had our training with the Army too train and then instruct the Lads on how too use the SA80 ,mags from M16s and balancing a 5 pence piece in the mag for training not the best of starts all that R and D too create a bullpup infantry weapon 1,short conflict back to the drawing board this time with Gun makers &K how much did that cost

    • Highly advanced weapon systems are probably going to be marketed or explained away as “The Crew”.

      To clarify, I am not slating the personnel of the Royal Navy, I just know from personal experience how marketing teams are going to spin this if they ever need to.

      • Those are short-legged coastal defence vessels, don’t have the range or facilities for blue water roles. Not a true comparison.

      • There is a reason why Russia are investing in corvettes rather than large ships ,that being they can not afford replacing their soviet era blue water fleet.

        • The reason is they have enclosed littoral waters in the Baltic and Black Sea which are best suited to coastal defence vessels.

          • Well that cant be sole reason other wise they wouldn’t try keep that wreck of a aircraft carrier going for one example.

          • maybe the t31’s will be at their best working with a squadron of well trained gun fitted archers

        • the modern corvette ships are warships in their own right. nimble, cheap, low crew needs, less expensive to operate plenty of room for system fits the thai derivative of the batch 2 river is a ship which, could be a serious combatant if need. especially in littoral uses the ship in question HMTS KRABI has been fitted with a 76mm oto melara rapid fire main gun, two additional 20mm canon mounted aft of thhe bridge wings with martlet addition an o harpoon is being looked at, but is unlikely to happen.

    • I think they’re the cheapest frigates we can afford. In peacetime they can do Freedom of Navigation operations and general anti-piracy or aid delivery.

      They are large and have the best short range AAW weapons available, so if some missile were fired at them they would have the best chance of defeating it and/or surviving long enough to get out of there. And then it’s not peacetime anymore, so send in a CBG with F35’s and Astutes.

    • I hope its 24. God the T31s have so much ability to offer I just hope that the MoD takes advantage. At the moment she appears to be nothing more than an Ocean Going Patrol Boat.

          • No. Sea Wold had 2 directors so could only send missiles to 2 targets. This have active radar in own missile so all 12 can be sent to 12 targets maybe with a second interval to fire each to not have conflict launch.

          • It’s good to know that the T-31 would last 12 seconds in an intense fight before running out of firepower.👌

          • It’s a peacetime picket ship for £250m. Possibly able to shoot down $1.2bn of aircraft. And then it’s not peacetime anymore.

          • Possibly able to shoot a few incoming missiles costing a few million before it gets hit. Other aircraft are beyond its range. All it is is a tripwire to make an escalation become a war. It is a sentry not a guard.

          • Think you nailed it with the “sentry not a guard” part. 100% agree. Though I do think they are fantastic vessels to free up the heavier war fighting ships, and a significant improvement on the OPVs in foreign stations (which maybe a better used in home and European theatres). Plus any further increase in their weapons load would make them even more credible down the line.

          • forward base a couple at gibraltar to assis mediterranian nations to secure the med and maybe at bahrain

          • more sentries=more sentrying and ability i think the t31 should have been seriously configured for asw operation around OUR coast the numbers of sneaky russian submarine activities in and around our waters should be addressed forget those slow, overpriced,slow, (none have reached the projected top speed.) to produce, leaky prematurely rusting astutes and get some hunter killers ssk’s built maybe look at the feasability of converting the mothballed trafalgars and swiftsures whi as usual for the royal navy retired too early especially after a billion spent on making swiftsures tomahawk capable. i was talking a few months ago to a devonport dockyard worker recently on a trip down to plymouth and he told me the swiftsures are in almost as good a state as they were when they were retired schematics of the class show a clear way that they could be de nuked, fitted withnew propulsion or air roding equipment e.t.c plus they’re already built.

          • timely reminder to revisit the unarmed carriers and albiond the news headline of major royal navy ships lost 200 crew and 150 marines and tanks lost. which poor flunkey would have to answe why it was that such big ships were unarmed i’ve always thought that with so big a bow on them the albions could/should have a decent capability to defend itself

          • The renderings that have been published over the last year or so have shown anywhere between 8-24 missiles. So, it’s all just speculation really. We will know how many when we see the first T31 built.

          • It is quite amazing that this has not be confirmed yet given the degree of advertised up-arming on T45.

            No real reason to keep it secret?

            I can see why you wouldn’t put 24 tubes in. You might not load all of them all of the time: knowing RN that will be the case. Given how light the missile is I don’t think it will require a massive dockside infrastructure to load it – just an ammunition certified jetty…..I know, I know….

          • Have to agree, why keep it a secret at all. I think we may see 24 tubes, as you say, not all of them loaded all of the time unless a mission/ deployment requires it.
            Either way we should know in the next 2 years or so. Will be something else to discuss when we know.

          • Personally I think the true cost will be closer to £400-£500 mill per unit rather than the oft quoted £280 mill once everything is fitted as per RN requirements.

      • And that as they say is the problem……..whilst our potential foes arm their ships to the teeth, we just struggle to actually afford to build any new ships and can’t afford the weapons they need……a Russian corvette is better armed than the Type 31….

    • It’s really odd that they haven’t confirmed it yet. I wonder if it comes down to them being MOD supplied and the decision hasn’t yet been made on how many will be available after sell off of the t23.

        • Agree. ALL RN T31 image has 12 CAMM. So that’s the number, unless the MOD-MBDA SeaCeptor contract modified the number.

          Models with more CAMM is all for export display, not for RN.

      • Yes, the only announced weapons fit has been that included in the Babcock contract. I suspect there are still budget and operational issues around deciding how much can be cross decked from Type 23, how much new, how much in PODS etc. I have a feeling the RN would rather spend on uncrewed systems than an interim anti-ship missile. And speed up development of FCASW.

  2. On forums like this there’s a lot of emphasis placed on the ‘juicy’, main weapons a new ship might use, main gun, SAMs and CIWS but less on the likes of systems such as chaff, flare, decoys and whether the ships might use something similar to the Trophy system to be deployed on the Challenger 3. What fit will be used on the T31 and the T26s? Any specific details on each system? Presume T31 spec won’t be quite as top-end as T26?

    • It’s interesting the military keeps its defensive aids capabilities much more hush hush than its offensive weapons, for good reason I guess. Most of the defensive systems tend to be bolt on as they get improved all the time but if you look hard enough there is some interesting info out there.

    • The Navy pretty much never talks about armour and missile countermeasures on its platforms as that information could be used to improve enemy missiles and cant be discerned from photo’s.

      • Whereas a drunk sailor in a bar speaking to a russian woman is a much easier method of obtaining such details. 😋

      • Thanks WZ, that’s a fair point although take david’s point also. The fewer places such details are publicised the better then.

      • Also these are designed to be last hope measures and not principle defensive aids. If the incoming mission gets into chaff/decoy range, the other defenses have already failed.

    • you really can called T26 as top-end if they replace GWS-35 launcher by any better launcher
      48 GWS-35 launcher with 48 CAMM missile are only as powerful as about 24 ESSM missile, which can fit in only 6 tube of Mark 41 VLS

      • Not sure if that is true – ESSM has 50Km range – is ‘hot launched’.so is confined to Mk 41. CAMM is reported to have around 50km range too – CAAM-ER 60Km+.

      • 48 CAMM is equivalent to 48 ESSM against incoming sea-skimmer ASM.
        48 CAMM is equivalent to 48 ESSM against near-by aircrafts/UAVs.
        48 CAMM cannot do much against targets beyond its “20-plus km” range, while ESSM can to something.

        It is surely not “CAMM x2 = ESSM”.

        • I think it’s that there are no re-loads carried, so if only 12 tubes, the ships won’t be able to defend themselves for long, let alone anything they’re escorting, from air/missile attack. That’s idiotic. 24 should be a minimum,30-50 up to standard. They’re big ships, so arming them so frugally just makes them very weak & a danger to their crews.

        • It does if the missile’s hot launch. The launcher has to be able to cope with a rocket going off inside it. It has to be able to take the heat & pressure & vent it safely.

          A cold launch missile like CAMM can be launched from something without all that, but it needs a cold launch thingy at the bottom of the tube to chuck it out so the rocket can ignite in the open.

          There’s also size. The tube has to be big enough, for a start.

    • Also the navy talks about a modular capability – i.e. PODS – expect to see modular weapons for ASW etc. The USN even has a container mounted Mk 41 VLS (four per container)!

      • I’d agree and with tech moving fast swarms, unmanned systems and DEWs are all candidates. And if we get it right these systems can be co developed as land systems leading to greater commonality and reduced costs.

  3. Not a bit like it.

    These are all state of the art systems that work.

    I wish I could have said the same for the T21 weapons fit.

    • Yes but they looked really really cool and went really really fast and were really really cheap. The fact they were not even designed for a blue water navy was beside the point.

      • T21 was meant to be really cheap but turned out to be reasonably expensive.

        As you say they were for home water defence under a land based air umbrella. So AAW was a bit of a ‘that’ll do job’.

        At least with B2 it is what it is rather than recreate T21.

        T31 has so much room and weight margin for expansion. The exact opposite of T21.

          • I remember being taught, as a very young man, things about the accuracy of the 4.5” gun that were frankly delusional.

          • When it did AA shoots I saw a fair few TTBs from it so it wasn’t all bad… And it fired chaff Charlie as well as star shells.

            For NGS it is really accurate… 3rounds in the same hole accurate… That can be a problem because it doesn’t spread the love around in a three round burst like less accurate systems do!

          • MK 8S when engaging targets such as ASMs would first fire 1 rd of either RE(I) Band or RE(j) Band then SU HE Salvos

          • It wasn’t all bad at AAW at all. Just talked up too much.

            For NGS, agreed, it is an awesome tool.

          • I think was a self fulfilling prophesy. RN did not believe in guns for AA, so the gun was designed with a slow rate of fire, then training and tactics for AA were certainly not a priority…

      • Yes, they did.

        Semi decent.

        You could now make a River B2 into a decent frigate. The electronics, for one, fit into tiny spaces compared to ‘70’s technology.

        With a small GP you always have compromises about what to fit as there still isn’t space or weight margin for everything.

        The River has a more robust hull.

          • Thing is with all these old retreads: how much of the stuff bolted on actually works fully or as intended?

            I mean it is pretty easy to take a hull and bolt all the stuff lying around in stores and weapons-r-us onto it. Sure it looks very impressive and sounds very lethal. But if you have got a crew of 70 operating non integrated systems manually then how do they do the job of 150 people?

  4. It does a bit. Then again, the Rivers really remind me of Type 21 too.. with a Blackwood rear end. BAE’s Leander offering also reminded me of Type 22.

  5. Nothing new, its always been that fit – maybe news on this would be the number of Sea Ceptors that will be fitted 12 or 24? And if I-SSGW is integrated onboard?. I recommend 16x Naval Strike Missiles to give it a decent land attack and AShM capability (Comes under I-SSGW) and then 24 Sea Ceptor.

  6. Not really, I know the comparison is often made but the Type 31 is a larger more capable design with a significant weapons fit with growth potential designed in for other systems.

    Type 21 was hamstrung by the size of electronic systems required to run the weapon systems of that era. To mount a cutting edge weapon system like Seawolf would require significant above and below deck systems. Modern weaponry like Sea Ceptor can be run using computers that only require a small server rack with some COTS blade PCs.

    This also makes upgrading or integrating new systems far easier on Type 31. Often only a software drop is required to add new capabilities.

    • Aspides (Sea Sparrow inspired missile heavier than a Sea Wolf) were put in 700t corvettes.

      The Vosper Niteroi Brazilian frigates have Aspide.

      • Indeed both those smaller classes had Sea Sparrow and Aspide which could be crammed onto a smaller vessel. The problem was the MOD didn’t want to procure another foreign made missile for their ships and also didn’t want to pay too much for what went on the Type 21 class. GWS 25 Seawolf required 13.5 tonnes of tracker and below deck electronics. The only other domestic solution available off the shelf, small and light enough to fit and very cheap as it was probably stripped from RN vessels retiring was Sea Cat.

        It was a mistake that cost the RN dearly in 1982, the problem is they didn’t expect to be using Type 21 in the way it was used.

        I do wonder how the class would have performed if they had been allowed to spend more and use foreign weapons. Phalanx would have been an excellent addition but wasn’t available when the class was being developed. You would probably have ended up with something armed not unlike contemporary MEKO class frigates at the time. So MK8 up front, a DARDO Type B twin bofors L70 and an ASPIDE quad box launcher.

        • I think the Argentinian air force could have been neutralized – like the Navy was – if RN ships had 2 fast firing gun modern systems in each naval combatant like Oto 76 or dual Breda. Aircraft had to fly above or very near each ship they attack.
          Heck even a a bunch of Oerlikon power mounts would make several kills.

          • In bomb alley, San Carlos, there is no doubt that better medium calibre guns would have changed the odds.

            As you say a lot the dumb bombing was done low level at short range and should have been a Turkey shoot for a properly equipped ship.

            This does not change the issue with Exocet which would not have been able to be dealt with in this way. The **fear** as well as the actuality of Exocet drove, to a very large extent, Woodward’s tactics.

        • Phalanx in ’82 wasn’t really a thing: as it was notoriously unreliable.

          As you say full Wolf was a very big lump.

          There was a big philosophical debate about the cut down Wolf system. A lot of which made no sense at all at the time. The reason for Wolf-lite was to put it on anything and everything.

          In the end it was cut because it could be cut as the orthodoxy was that it would only be fitted to certain larger ships. Plans to put the cut down version on everything then went out of the window.

      • They did have it in development but it was cancelled, it reduced the weight from 13.5 tonnes down to 5 tonnes in theory. I bet they were having problems with that target and with Phalanx coming available and being very compact to install they went down that path instead.

      • BOB, Hms Penlope Leander Class Frigate was the test bed for Sea Wolf she was fitted with 6 missle launcher which was manually loaded and reloaded that was around 1978

  7. Also interesting to note, that the Type 21’s, which were designed also as cheap, patrol frigates for export cost £268 million per unit – in today’s money- which is the same as the Type 31 with GFE added.

    However they had a Mark 8, 2 20mm and Sea Cat – so pretty much ‘equivalent’ Type 31 now but were modified later down the road to have Exocets and ASW torp’s – which I think is the plan with the Type 31, too add weapon systems later on.

    Mind you, they also then got sold to Pakistan who swiftly installed Harpoon, Phalanx and a Chinese rip-off of the Italian Aspide SAM.

    Sadly, we all know how the Type 21 performed in combat, that it was too small and made of the wrong material and a bit top-heavy, and systems that were hopelessly obsolete. Hopefully Type 31 doesn’t meet the same fate.

    Another example of history repeating itself.

    • You are right in the facts of the approach to cost ,design and light armaments , is very much the same as the the type 21 . but the differences will be Type 31 has a much bigger and stronger hull and much better air defences

    • I think it’s really important the project is firstly allowed to deliver what is contracted to be delivered for the fixed price. Prove no specification interference half way through works and delivers on the price promise. Once commissioned and during first major maintenance period add whatever bolt ons are deemed necessary.

      If initial fit is only 12 then definitely look at adding more CAMM from retiring T23.

      If no bow sonar then at least provide wildcat with a basic dipping sonar as originally designed and as retained on the S Korean versions.

      If I-SSGW is destined for T23 initially with potential to come to T31 in 10-15 years time then I would look at adding a bolt on load out of 12 x Sea Spear, not Spear 3 or Brimstone II, but the 16kg 25km warhead version of Brimstone. The same system rumoured to being offered to Ukraine at the moment for its FAC. It’s British, low cost and can be readily integrated into CMS alongside other MBDA solutions.

      P

      • Multi task Automonous workboats are the future not dipping sonar Wildcat.
        Don’t be surprised to see a remote workboat with a thin line towed array deployed from a T31 providing the ASW coverage. With 2 work boats deployed and working as a team you can triangulate easily to get a position.

      • Are not most of the Sea Ceptors from retiring T23’s, are going over to the T26’s, with 48 on each ship? Not sure have new CAMM sets been brought for the first two T26’s? I still think likely to be a shortfall of Sea Ceptor for both classes of ships.

        • Interesting. When the announcements were first made that the Type 26’s deliveries were accelerating with Glasgow due to be handed over in 2024 that would have meant Glasgow would have been fitted out well ahead of the then (publicly) planned decommissioning dates for Argyll and Lancaster.

          With Monmouth decommissioned (Sea Wolf fit) and Montrose (CAMM fit) retiring early in 2022 then yes, the potential for the cells to be earmarked to T26 exists, albeit in numbers below the 96 cells planned for the first two Type 26’s. If right we can expect another Type 23 to be decommissioned early to generate the required 96 cells for the first two T26’s. With plans to add CAMM to Type 45 It would make sense to get ahead of the curve and order additional sets for early Type 26 hulls and avoid need for subsequent retro-fit. Irrespective, stand by original comment, if they are available fit them to T31…if not…then more reason to add simple cannisters for Sea Spear and leave CAMM to deal with at least a minimal air threat although the Guns do provide some good added coverage out to 10km or so.

          cheers

          P

  8. I see your point about the Type 21, The MOD is taking same approach build it cheaper and simpler to make up fleet numbers. Type 21s were under-armed at first but later fitted with Exocets, the types 21 biggest weakness armament wise though was the useless Seacat system.

    • The T21 and most of the Navy. SeaCat was inflicted lots of ship, the County class was doubly blessed with SeaCat and the equally useless SeaSlug.

      • Did my time with Slugs did the job when 901 acquired and locked on but that was in the 60ts to 80ts time of Aircraft threats alot different to today’s

        • My experience with Slug was that the whole system rarely has all of it working at the same time.

          There were so many micro switches in the magazine handling system and on the launcher that they rarely all worked. And all the logic was hard wired to the switches.

          If you look at Glamorgan in The Computer Ship film (it is on you tube) the jerky way the vertical fire break door opens suggests to me that someone was in the other side of it opening it with a crank (similar to a car starter crank).

          • Fair enough with the micro switches from winging and finning ,main mag ready use mag side lanes, traverser space, discard bays, and elevation space, tracking down was alright it was just trying too get to them was the buggerice factor even worse was when we brewed up and plugged the Kettle on it sometimes tripped the Magazine movement console and the fuse panel was in the Booties mess deck

          • The Flah doors were curved yes they did seem Jerky when opening for moving the Slugs around problems arose if the Efflux deflector plate was in up and locked position if someone forgot to lower it prior too magazine movement

    • The system was excellent except for the missile bit at the end of it. … 992 radar was the same secondary radar as Seawolf R968(different radome as Seawolf also had a 967 in the radome as well) . 912 trackers with the TV system where very very good… I did plenty of tracking serials on T21s for accuracy assessments and they where always far better than any other tracker bar 910s on T22s…. But yes the whole was dependent on a rubbish missile

      • Type 912 was RTN 10X, it was in widespread use all over the world. Some are still around which is telling for a 1970’s director.

    • Type21s sleek like a Greyhound, looked the Dogs Bxxxxxks Apart from the Aluminium superstructure good on paper for Tonnage reduction didn’t fare well when on Fire weaknesses also upperdeck had later too be reinforced with rails too stop Flexing Good for Navy News Photoshoots not good when SxxT happens sorry too say

  9. Nothing new here! One has to hope that this is the initial weapons fit to keep the costs within budget and enhancements will follow.

    Not too concerned with the guns fit but a few more Sea Ceptor and a box launched AShM (hopefully inherited from the T23’s if this interim capability is ever ordered) would be lovely.

    For ASW a bow mounted sonar and dipping sets for Wildcat would offer a rudimentary improvement on the cheap.

    • Different beasts mate, yeah you can cram a load of weapons onto a platform, even make it go really fast but that doesn’t make it a Blue Water platform, just a local defence vessel. I know we’d all like more ‘oomph’ on our warships but the UK is now all about the global so we need to send ships all over the place, you can’t really do that on an 800 tonne wessel (going all Chekov from Star Trek).

        • You can’t have a fleet of all singing all dancing super ships for every occasion though, we already separate ASW from AAW for example, while it might be handy to have the quiet hulls of the ASW platforms across the fleet but they cost money. Something has to give and finances will always play a big part.

          • You don’t need to be all singing all dancing super ship, but you need to be somewhat competitive against the most common opposition you are likely to encounter. If you are planning to be operating globally, such a ship needs to cover a wide range of possibilities. If you look at the SCS, it boasts huge numbers of submarines & most nations OPV’s in the area outgun the T31 &/or carry offensive missiles.

            At a minimum, it needs a hull mounted sonar, 24 CAMM, 76mm main gun & at least 4 NSM. You then have a minimal GP frigate.

    • Simple, just get rid of Sea Ceptor and replace it with Taiwanese Hsiung Feng III. Switch one Bofors for SeaRAM and maybe change the 57mm with a 76mm. There you have it, a larger, uparmed version of that 800t Russian corvette.

    • And why would we put a T31 up against them. They have limited range so it would be our decision to put a t31 up against them. We have other weapons systems we could call on like the F35 or as we’d be in shooting war with Russia, other NATO assets. We’ve made a strategic decision to have high-low mix.

      • Problem is if WE are forward deploying these then they will be operating in the areas of theses 800-2000t heavily armed corvettes !!

  10. Let hope some I-SSGW will be earmarked for these ships, Up to now the weapons fit looks purely short range and defensive.

  11. For a ship that is intended for forward deployment often by itself, this weapons fit is seriously inadequate. No ASW, no heavy Anti ship missile and given the latest non statement, perhaps only 12 SAMs.
    The money to be wasted on a national yacht would pay for a proper level of armament at least to the level of the original Iver Huitfeldts.
    With so few surface ships, we should not be commissioning anything so lacking in capability. Of course they were ordered literally to make up the numbers so idiot politicians could waffle about maintaining or growing the fleet.They will be little better than coastguard vessels. Ridiculous.

  12. 12 Sea Ceptor, 3 small guns and no mention of even a basic hull mounted sonar, might as well call it HMS Death Trap. Seriously, what’s the point?

    • I think the 57mm should be moved to the Type 45 and an heavier gun put in Type 31.

      But at least RN finally give attention to guns- the doubt is if it isn’t due to BAE…

      • Lets get them in the water then first refit put the 4.5 from decommissioned T-23 on and move the 57mm to the River B2’s 🙂

        • The USN is standardising on the 57mm for its new frigates. So maybe add them to the B2s, but keep them on the T31s too – though I suspect the 40mm Bofors would be a better fit for the B2s.

          • Which can fit onto the same mount as the 30mm anyway. According to the manufacturers anyway.

          • Off the top of my head, I think you will find that it’s a different 40mm design (ie not a L70 based gun).

    • Those 3 guns are really good AA guns, the modern 40mm have similar combat performance to the RIM missiles of SeaRam in the AA role and better swarm protection.

  13. You would think with Russia and China playing bad boy at the moment it would be wise to give this Type a weapons platform to take care of themselves ,but we all know what the UK government are like 🙄

    • Yeah and they are equally likely to send it to cruise off of Crimea or the South China Sea though I doubt that the Commons speech that follows any potential disaster there will be written until the PM stands up to deliver it. I mean who could possibly foresee the result… a bit like arresting an Iranian tanker in the name of a body who weren’t informed and didn’t want anything to do with it thereafter while leaving your own merchant vessels unprotected. Doesn’t instil one with confidence adults are in charge let alone competent ones.

  14. sorry to go against the flow of negativity but these are excellent additions to the RN. Big hull with plenty of space to embark plenty of different systems. Get them in the water, there is lots of time to add additional features.

    • Agreed Rob, while I get the desire for more weapons, these are big old frigates with the capacity for extra people and gear, and budget was key in their construction. They’ll do for starters, we can always but more ‘stuff’ on them later, especially as there are a lot more ‘plug and play’ stuff available, I doubt they’ll be getting a big bang stick unfortunately, these will be more likely to provide NGS than the 45/26’s but hey ho….

      • Some things are an easy add. Like more CAMM or even CAMM-ER, NSM, torpedo tubes etc (at least with a little bit of planning). Other things are actually more expensive if you do it later. eg changing main gun, fitting hull mounted sonar, better radar, etc. It’s easier & cheaper to add if you don’t have to remove perfectly good gear to do so.

        So unfortunately I agree, they won’t be getting the Big Bang stick for NGFS, which they are the stand out candidate for (I would have settled for the Medium Bang stick as a compromise), but hopefully T32 will be an improvement (hard to be worse).

    • Agreed. While this article doesn’t really tell us much, I think these ships will prove to be very effective and useful. The arrow of probability seems to be pointing to a sea ceptor fit of 24, the ISSGW that is being procured for the remaining T23’s will no doubt be fitted as well. Given the size of the hull, we can surely expect some provision to be made for a later fit of sonar/ASW equipment. The 57mm, 40 mm and possible 30mm guns would shred any swarm vessel attack.

      • Twelve Sea Ceptor is the only part of the T31 concept I’ve not been able to square. Ample mk41 VLS on the Ivers, so why not more Ceptor silos, even if not all filled with missiles from the start. Still plenty of deck space for SSM canisters, so are the RN leaving the nominal additional VLS void for future missile flexibility?

        • Yeah , I think that the renditions showing just 12 Ceptor silos were just that : renditions. I think there will be 24 silos for Ceptor, and launchers for ISSGW (whatever flavour is chosen). Don’t think that Mk 41 will get a look in as the idea seems to be transferring the weapons fit from each retiring T23 as they are paid off.

        • Because the whole ethos of the Type 31 is building to a strict Budget and sticking to it – if that Budget dictates only 12 VLS for Sea Ceptor then 12 it will be.

          • Of course ’12 it will be’. A simplistic reposte that does not address the gist of the post, Paul.

          • At no point has the number of Sea Ceptor been announced, but the point he is making is: the budget is the hard cap.

    • Agreed, too many whingers who want half the national budget spent on a fleet of 16” gunned battleships… The T31 is a good design with decent armament and capacity to grow, the only real question is number of Sea Ceptor fitted – and that is all based on speculation at the moment as the numbers haven’t been announced.

  15. Seems a rather large ship for so little hardware? Why such a small main gun for example? I recall talking to a WW2 AA cruiser ex matlot who said they thought they were well armed until they got into action, then the realised they were not. “Compared to Yank ships, we were undergunned when it came to AA action.”
    Is it right to compare then with today? Yes I think so. Weapons may have changed but the principle remains the same.
    I await education.

    • Its up-side down. Requirement was for smaller 4000t-ish vessel (with the same armaments). So, the 6000-6500t large hull is just a bonus, good for future.

      But, claiming it is so empty is pointless. (although really really understandable)

      See T31-RFI pdf.

      • Whilst I get the arguement, I suspect the reality is the upgrades will never come. Budgets will just become tighter and tighter, and having the buzz line of being able to say exploring various upgrade options, whennever asked, will get the MOD/policticans out of holes.

        As we have seen in recent history (falklands/Iraq/afgan), capability gaps are only filled when troops die and the media forces the governments hands. With naval assets, it’s kinda too late once the ship is sunk to uparm it.

        Only time will tell.

          • Or the Type 23’s.

            But more importantly a ship can only be in one place at a time. So in order to maintain commitment a high-medium-low (Darings/Citys-Inspirations-Rivers) mix is needed.

    • Hope these can be Specific too the task required like the old Leanders Air Surface, Sub Surface rather than all roled into One the Gap is once again starting to be a highway too the North Atlantic like the good old days sosus is still up and listening, but it’s better too have visible assets as a deterrent . JUST my thought’s

  16. Wouldn’t mind if the designers had followed the module design for weapons the Absalon Class support (now frigates) ship. They are based on the iverH design have 5” main gun, Stanflex containers that can carry upto 36 x essm and 8-16 harpoons, 2 x Merlins , SBE-90 assualt boats and a flex deck that can transport upto a MBT size or be configured for troops or Med use. THAT would be a useful and effective patrol frigate, even if you only fit 12 x essm during peacetime having the option to easily up arm into a useful LRG escort/ NGS/ Spec Ops base thus freeing up the t-45 & T-26 to carry out primary roles
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_frigate

      • If true that would be very interesting. I can see how you might leave T31 as a patrol / GP frigate and put your heavy assault weapons on T32.

    • Frigate seems an odd designation for the Absalon. Wouldn’t a flotilla of ‘combat support ships’ make more sense as a conceptual replacement for the LPDs and LPH?

      • Apparently during last refit they had more capability (ASW i think) added leading to decision to change to a frigate. I think you would need 3-4 to effectively replace 1 LPD in capacity but they don’t have well deck so can’t carry LCU’s having half dozen to support/escort the LRG would free up T-45/T-26 and provide some helo capacity lost with Ocean

        • Yes you would need several and with well docks to replace a single LPD. Not saying the Absalon design as it stands but maybe a bit bigger and with a well deck would be an interesting prospect.

        • Yes; as I understand it they are a frigate with a flex deck and a stern ramp. I suspect the RN are still thinking though what they want from T32 while trying to optimise planned replacement of the capabilities delivered by the LPDs, LSDs, LHDs and Argus. Standardisation does reduce purchase and running costs. Exciting times.

    • Instead of Stanflex the RN are looking to use their own PODs across the fleet not just the T31. These appear to be based on standard shipping containers which means even the B2s could house a couple.

      • so lose helo capability on B2’s for few missiles? I’ve not seen anything in T-31 design to indicate that they can be slotted in anywhere again other than the flight deck? The T-45 have the weight allowance for extra missiles but it is a major refit to be able to use them? the StanFlex bays can be used for other things but if required can have extra module just slotted in to up arm.

        • The B2s don’t carry helicopters as they have no hanger, and most are forward deployed away from where British helicopters are based. But the space for these is actually beneath the flight deck, not on it, unlike the B1s.

          There’s space on the T31… where the Stanflex used to go.

          It’s not a major refit adding extra missiles to the T45. The space was always reserved for them and seems to be used as an unofficial gym currently on some. Adding the soft-launch silos for Sea Ceptor will be easier than Mark 41 VLS for Tomahawks.

          • Think we all know B2’s don’t have Hanger 🤣 been god knows how many discussions about it on here! If the space is below then unless the new RN pods are heavily reinforced they won’t be able to use flight deck! Sorry didn’t realise we had helo’s based around the indo/pacific area permanently.
            If the T-31 have space where the stanflex used to be WTF are the MOD reinventing the wheel for the stanflex design is proven to work, i bet it won’t take 30min (thats time need to fit one) to install Sea Ceptor on the T-45? IF they do during the PIP work all well and good but what is the likelihood?

          • Just checking as you seem so ignorant in your other comments, such as not knowing about the space below the helipad – why do you think they have that crane onboard?…
            The PODs don’t need to be heavily reinforced, the helicopter lands on the deck not the PODs 🤦‍♂️

            Reread my post, that’s my point, we DON’T have helicopters based on the info pacific 🤦‍♂️

            Err… maybe because the RN thinks basing something on standard shipping containers is better than the proprietary Stanflex design used by the Danish and… er nobody else 😆

            So you appear to believe ships either have “major refits” or “30 mins” ones… fascinating…
            The Sea Ceptor might be fitted during the PIP but more likely it will be during regular maintenance after a deployment – and no that isn’t called a “major refit” 🤦‍♂️

          • thanks for the insults, and the education nice to know that the new pods will magically launch through the flight deck. The whole point in the 30 min is that you could increase the change role/weapon load without needing any refit just a crane which as you say they have. From whats on the RN site PODS will be based around 20’ ISO seeing they are max 2M high apart from Martlet or maybe Sea Venom i cant think of any missile that would fit upright. they could fit length ways yes but then you need to transition them to vertical or will they shoot through the hull like the deck? i’ll let the engineering expert enlighten this ignorant observer

          • Worth noting that the British Army does have Helicopters based in the pacific, 667 Sqn AAC. And just because you don’t have a hangar doesn’t mean you can’t operate a helicopter, just that the timelines between having to maintain it ashore are shorter.

          • Everyone forgets the Army never ceased having a presence in the Indo-Pacific.
            Honestly I really hope we get to see Tamar and Spey used like Forth and Clyde are/were in the Falklands, doing Helicopter insertions and exfils from the OPV’s as parts of exercises.
            (Also pleased to see that the Batch 1’s are extended to 2028, hopefully 1-for-1 replacements will be lined up then so we have the Batch 2’s and 3’s going at the same time)

        • Nope. River B2’s have space alongside the superstructure for containerised systems, so you can slot in a UAV/UUV/Missile/Whatever system without compromising Helicopter Operations. You can see the space for them in the attached image (either side of the crane).
          Type 31 has space for six TEU’s under the flight deck, no missile container capability obviously, but still space for them.
          The Stanflex spaces amidships won’t be used on T-31 for containers since that’s where the Sea Ceptor VLS farm and any cannister launched ISSGW missiles while go.

          • Thanks Dern, didn’t realise there was enough space for a TEU, can get the UAV,UUV etc inthe PODS but don’t understand the ‘STRIKE’ entry, TEU’s 20’x8’x8′ and except Sea Venom/martlett can’t think of any Naval missile that would stand up in a 2m box? or would they be looking to do a naval version of the LAND Ceptor truck bed and raise it up to launch? Even the StandFlex pics show forest of tubes sticking out for the ESSMs STANFLEX Modules Standard Flexible Royal Danish Navy (seaforces.org) and they are 3m high

          • I mean there are concepts for naval strike missiles to be fired from containerised systems, but nothing concrete at the moment (pictured is I believe a system using a forty foot containerised system). I wouldn’t hold my breath for Sea Venom/Martlet in PODS, because those have an effective delivery system via Helicopter already. Sea Ceptor maybe because Land Ceptor is already practically containerised.

            For now I think PODS will initially be “just” flexible systems like Med, UUV’s, CIC’s etc, rather than sexy lethal systems.

    • Slight correction needed,the Iver Huitfeldt Class Frigates are sort of based on the Absalon Class Ships,not the other way around.

  17. Ok so a lot of you are scathing about it’s armament I understand. Compare it with Russian ships it looks unarmed. So why am I happy with it ? There are two parts to a warships fighting ability first are the guns and missiles yes Russian warships are far more heavily armed but the reason why comes from the second part of the equation. The guns and missiles depend on the ships sensors and fire control to hit there target. Russian sensors and fire control are at least a generation behind western counterparts. To put it bluntly they need to fire more missiles and shells at the target in order to achieve a hit that’s why there are more of them. That’s the negative reason why i’m happy the positive reason is that the RN has well and truly learned the lesson of building a ship around the current weapons and sensors and is buiding ships with the spare capacity for the weapons and sensors of 20 plus years from now. I am certainly in the minority but I for one am very happy.

    • Happy to get the extra hulls but i don’t care how wonderful the radar etc i, with only 12 missiles and no reloads on day 2 of any conflict and the crew will be BOHICA, whether that be Russian/chinese or Irainian they would shoot damm site more missiles than 12 and that would be followed up by just plain dumb bombs and they won’t worry about a 57mm and couple of 40mm guns 🙁

    • IMHO a frigate size ship should be able to engage similar size or larger warships, the idea that Type 31 is purposed for ‘Low-intensity’ conflict is nonsense. What would happen if hostilities broke out and a type 31 found itself in the same location as a hostile surface vessel with long-range Ashm or even a submarine ?

    • Dave,just like the Ruskies during the Soviet era lots of all singing and dancing Weapon systems looked frightening so visible but like you stated ,they were unable too engage more than one threat system overload

  18. Can anyone tell me who paid for the new assembly hall at Rosyth for the type 31s ? Was it the UK taxpayer or was it the Scottish government ? either way is not a private company (Babcock) being effectively subsidised by public money no doubt Babcock are paying a peppercorn rent or lease on this building to make it legal but is it morally acceptable?

    • A wild guess on my part – through the UK Govt contract to Babcocks, awarded through the MOD,so in effect the UK Taxpayer.

  19. Lots of comparison with the type 21, but the T31 is really a fundamentally different type of ship, the 21 was never really designed for the RN or a blue water navy, it was a cheap brown water navy patrol frigate designed for benign enclosed seas that would appeal to North African and Middle Eastern allies. With its low range, fragile hull and lack of any real growth space.

    The 31 is probably more a modern version of the leopard class, focused gun armament, long range patrol vessel, with plenty of potential for growth. designed to be operated by a blue water navy as a long range patrol/ escort for commercial vessels.

      • Yes but not in the same way as a carrier group escort, They were essentially designed to protect commercial shipping against surface raiders, lower end air threats and to cruise long distances, So a really very close to a T31s likely role.

    • it was a cheap brown water navy patrol frigate designed for benign enclosed seas that would appeal to North African and Middle Eastern allies.

      Well if you are in brown water you have much more chances of getting enemy aircraft attacking than in middle of Atlantic Ocean.

      Type 21 was done for Atlantic Ocean. But the overall problem is that Seacat was a failure. If put a Type 22 with a Seacat and would be failure too.

      • The only thing SeaCat could take out was a large, subsonic missile flying in a straight line at you, so I see your point

      • Hi Alex, the T21 had real issues with open oceans, to the point it needed a good deal of structural work undertaken to manage the Atlantic. It was always designed as an export frigate for brown water navy’s. It was never really intended as an open ocean escort, it could not do ASW or AAW in the role of escort. It was designed as a EEZ patrol frigate for the South American, North African and Middle Eastern market.

        With SeaCat, It’s important to remember context as well in the 1960s when amazon was designed and it’s keel laid, sea cat was current, but even then it was only ever a light weight like for like light AA gun replacement. It was designed to engage aircraft using iron bombs or rotor craft.

        We think SeaCat is crap because by the early 1980s it was utterly outdated. but it was developed in the 5Os To current engage large targets like planes or Large dumb early heavyweight anti ship missiles like Styx. It also had a use against surface targets as well. The reason it was still on the T21s in the 1980s was the navy could not find a cost effective way to update the T21 due to lack of space in the commercial design. So the weaknessEs of the T21 were inbuilt in the hull ( the structural weakness and lack of growth capacity to update) and not the weapons fit, which was adequate for its design and time of design).

        A final interesting point is the RN could have added sea wolf to the T21, but because of the 21s limitations chose not to and planned to remove the vessels by the mid/late 1980s.

        When we look at the T31 it’s almost the exact opposite of the the T21 apart from the budget constraints driving a compromise. But in this case as the RN has more control the compromises are what the RN could accept ( blue water ship, with lots of growth potential but limited initial weapons fit but all focused on Closer in AAW). It does show lessons have been learn.

        • Vospers got exported and reportedly the Brazilians are happy with bigger derivative Niteroi – Some are still in service and were updated. Some will reach more than 50 years old in service.

          The problem is that British industry sometimes were genius = Harrier.
          Other times they design things too heavy, too complicated: there is no reason for a system for Sea Wolf a 100kg missile to be so heavy and big.

          • Yes the Mk10 was a far better sized ship that the T21, that extra 600tons and 20 meters made all the different to having capacity to be modernised.

          • Yeah, but Venezuelans and Peruans just a bit up north still have their Lupos modernised which are about same Type 21 size.

          • Really good ships the Lupos, very well balanced surface combatants and light escorts. It’s was one of those ships that was just very good at a time the Italian warship industry was probably the best in Europe. It is worth remembering the Lupe was a 1980s frigate that was still being built in the 1990s so it’s a decade more modern that the T21. But simply put it was a better balanced ship all around than the T21.

          • The order for Lupos was in 1970. First was laid down in 1974. 18 that were build (only 4 for Italy) were laid until 1983, the last 4 were for Iraq and never arrived there.
            Appears there was a 5 year difference. Wiki says first Type 21 was laid in 1969.

            I think the issue with Type 21 was the space management for weapons.
            Choosing the Seacat which was a very lightweight launch system, mean that nothing RN had could have replace it in that place. Being in top of the hangar means no cabinet could be below , so not even a gun could have been put there contrary to what i said.

  20. Principal’s basically sound. Have platforms you can turn ou quickly for a reasonable price. Produce them to a size that offers decent range and flexiblity, together with a relatively rapid systems upgrade capability dictated by evolving risk.

    • So long as of course they see some capability enhancements one day and aren’t left ‘fitted for not with’ a whole host of extra kit.

      • Which is where the idea of kit in PODS is coming from, and that the MOD are pushing this idea hard.
        Personally not entirely sure this is the best way to go, but seems to be the current flavour of the month.

      • I believe the fundamental paradigm shift from our post Cold War dreamtime is the resurgence of Russia and, of likely more relevance, the emergence of China. The luxury of being able to commission vessels either too small or FFBNW for their active lives will be effectively vetoed by these two. The Shipbuilding Strategy and recent announcement on the Type 45 indicates the enforced direction of travel.
        Additionally, the UK moves to demonstrate sustained multilateral engagement is of course a predicated requirement of both the OPV2s and T31s in the influence realm.
        With even the US fearing an inability to compete in the numbers game, all allied capacity is going to have to, and will increasingly, step up as a deterrent.
        Would it were otherwise!

    • Yes the really important bit is getting the right hull at the right price for a blue water navy like the RN, with plenty of growth. Better a larger hull with more range and growth than a smaller hull with more more weapons and limits on growth and deployment due to range and hull construction.

      • It seems the United Kingdom is still expected to ‘lead’ on influence internationally. From the perspective of a native, perhaps it is difficult for us to envision this.
        We know we’re a small territory which struggles with financial issues and nowadays self-flagellates over a past that, contrarily, both cannot be undone & perhaps contributes to my opening postulation. Though I actually think that it is our taken-for-granted democratic processes – way from ideal though they are – that may be the decisive fsctor, and that many may thus wish to take heart from and emulate.
        On that basis, in the maritime domain in this instance, we’re constrained to build numbers of vessels that are lightly armed but ‘advanced’ rather than all singing/dancing home waters area denial platforms – until the international situation dictates plug/play upgrades are essential. I see aircraft carriers performing basically he same same role, if an extreme example, incidentally. Nuc Subs being the exception due to their unique demands, I suppose.

  21. Massively undergunned. Sending our sailors out in these against Russian or Chinese equivalents which are armed to the teeth with anti-ship misfiles, torpedoes, guns and cannons is a crime. When will the MoD ever learn. Made the same mistake in the 30s.

  22. Notice didn’t say how many Sea Ceptor missiles or whether or not the ships eventually gets an anti-ship missile system.

    This is important because a warship that can only defend it’s self but poses no threat actually isn’t a warship.

    • BUT…it has a 4D radar, so it can not only see side-side and up and down….but in time as well! Or is my understanding of 4D flawed?
      Usual press release. Absolutely no hard facts but lots of, well, nothing really.
      Needs sonar, but with 24 sea Ceptor and the gun fit, a great carrier goalkeeper.
      AA

      • If you want to get a good track, you would need the time component to understand how fast it’s moving, and not just where it was at a specific moment in time. No idea if that is what the 4D stands for though.

        • It just PR. As a 4D radar it provides range, bearing and slant range along with the tracks velocity worked out from the doppler shift. All military pulse doppler radars since the late 80’s are 4D radars.

  23. Was this not the ship that was to give her enemies a broad side.
    or was this another ship?
    still surley even a basic ship should be able to protect itself and give as good as it recieves, but we seem to be building ships that look impressive . yet are defenceless,

    being an amature interest at this, im sure you will put me straight…..mmmmm

  24. Good AA/anti-missile fit out(Though if Sea Ceptor numbers are too low it’ll be easily overwhelmed). Negligable anti-ship or NGS. Negligable ASW unless a Merlin embarked. Great anti-small boat. Great way to reopen the can of worms on the T31s armament! Nothing we didn’t already know.

  25. I’m expecting a more war worthy fit in the future, but for now they seem suited to keeping the Revolutionary Guard and other pirates off our merchant fleet.

    • Especially with what the Chinese are fitting to every warship, big or small, this is going to be hopelessly outmatched if it leaves any layered protection of other warships in any situation short of fishery protection

      • This isn’t meant to go up against China. It’s meant precisely to be in lower end environments such as the Gulf. I’m also guessing it will end up better armed; just building it like this so it stays within budget then adding weapons on refits; most likely ISSGW from the Type 23s and I would like to see some Martlets added for extra anti-small boat defence.

        • If going to replace the forward deployed B2’s then the indo/pacific will def be sent on regular trips through South China Sea just to annoy them

          • In fairness, you could send a Type 26 with it’s Mk41 bristling with ASM’s and it’s SeaCeptor VLS fully packed, and it still wouldn’t stand a chance if something turned hot in the SCS. So let’s get some perspective when people freak about fwd deploying things.

            If an Escort is in the SCS and war breaks out 1 of 2 things will happen:
            1) It hides, and retreats until it meets up with an RN/Allied CSG, and then returns.
            2) It gets sunk in a one sided engagement.

            Just one of those things to think about.

            (Mind you Type 31 won’t get Marlet IMO, Wildcat already carries it and Sea Venom so making a ship launched version will just be adding cost for minimal added value)

          • true, i bet when they are hiding they would wish they had few extra. I just personally like the STANFLEX idea, have the 5 bays, peace time just have 1 with missiles the other 4 used for extra Aid stores (or a gym) but if things start looking dodgy the option to head to friendly port, C-17 could fly 4 Stanflex modules and a crane within few hours of ship arriving could be loaded with 36SAM and 16 AShM to assist in CSG / RFA protection in close and backup T-45’s allowing T-26 to move away from freindly noise to carry out ASW

          • Point being if you have an escort with 12-24 Sea Ceptor vs one with 48 Sea Ceptor and it gets found by the Chinese in a hot war in the SCS on it’s own it won’t make a difference, it just won’t survive. The dynamic isn’t “Do I have enough missiles to survive if I get found.” it’s “If I get found I’m being sunk, because I am a single escort and the enemy has an entire navy and air force close to hand.”

  26. “in addition to a range of highly advanced weapon and sensor systems.”

    The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) says it plans to spend “up to” £130 million developing three new directed-energy weapons – including both laser and radio-frequency systems.

    https://optics.org/news/10/7/20

    • Precisely. However, don’t disturb the toy shop by mentioning A.I., sub surface and aerial drones and other ‘advanced systems’.

      • Very true.
        This could be the new standard for warship design, minimum armament on the ship itself and full capability being achieved with containers, drones and helicopters that can be easily swapped out.

        • We are seeing a step change as great as any since gunpowder. This presents challenges for doctrine and our whole defence posture. Building what we are used to now could mean that in two or three years our forces are like the brave Poles attacking tanks on horseback; heroic but futile. I never read much on this forum’s comments about the impact of 3D printing, virtual reality, or much beyond this or that kinetic weapon fit. That said, my reading of conflicts since the year dot underlines the essential factor in successful prosecution of intentions so often is people, morale, motivation and initiative. That and the strange fact that almost all major sea engagements (not campaigns however) have taken place close to or in sight of land.

          • Both the RAF and RN have heavily invested in 3D printing. Both carriers have “plastic” 3D printers, they have yet to get a metal 3D printer. Though I know there’s a certain unit within the RN that have one, which is being used for testing.

            3D printed parts have been used on aircraft since 2015, when they were certified for use by the CAA/MAA. However, the plastics that can be used are the expensive, such as Ultem sue to its structural stability and flame resistance. Some of the carbon fibre based plastics may be certified soon, as they have been under investigation by the CAA.

            As Space X has proven, metal 3D printed parts that are strong and robust are now available. So it can only be a matter of time before, we see our military base and ship workshops using them.

          • Many thanks. I believe I read something about that here awhile ago. I was simply making the point that the implications are that this and other technologies are proceeding at such a rapid pace much of what we think of in material equipment and doctrine today is being overtaken very rapidly.

  27. The Danes with their five praiseworthy Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt frigates, reduced build costs by recycling sensor and weapons suites retrieved from older decommissioned vessels. Is the RN unable to up arm these new ships with the best assets from the outgoing but recently upgraded Duke Class? What is their sonar and ASW capability if no Merlin embarked or it’s unavailable? Why is no there no effective ASuW armament ? They seem hardly more potent than the River class as things stand, and at some point, by Sod’s law, it’s guaranteed they’ll be expected to fill in on carrier escort duty.

    • Good sense comments Lanre. We could pinch 32 second hand silos off the Monmouth and maybe another 32 off the Richmond to cover the additional 5×12 = 60 silos if not being used already and if these ships won’t get upgraded.

      • HMS Monmouth looks like a good spares donor if it’s Sea Wolf VLS Tubes are of any use,but HMS Richmond has a few good years in RN Service yet,she’s not long out of Refit plus she has had the PGMU Upgrade too.

      • The old Sea Wolf hot launch silo tubes were removed from refitted T23’s with CAMM.
        CAMM is contained in its own canister. It is cold launched by gas.
        The mushroom bit was welded on deck because CAMM is longer than SW.

    • “…up arm these new ships with the best assets from the outgoing but recently upgraded Duke Class?”

      That is actually the plan. To move over Sea Ceptor from retiring T23’s frigates to new T26’s and T31’s. New sets of CAMM should of been brought for the first two T26’s.

    • They are?
      Sea Ceptor is being retrieved from the Duke’s and fitted to both Inspirations and City classes, just with a pre-ponderance for the City’s (City Class: 48 Sea Ceptor launchers, Duke Class: 32).

      And uh…
      57mm with smart munitions,
      2x40mm
      12-24x Sea Ceptor
      Wildcat with SeaVenom/Martlet/Stingray
      Probably ISSGWx8
      9000nm range
      6 TEUs
      3 Boat Bays
      vs
      1x30mm
      5000nm range
      2 TEU’s
      2 boat bays

      “Hardly more potent than a River.” Yeah….about that.

  28. So first in the water by 2023 and all completed and delivered by 2028 thats only 6 yrs, compared to the Type 26, not too shabby

  29. space for 24 GWS-35 VLS with 24 CAMM missile could be replace by 16 SYLVER VLS with 64 CAMM missile, there’re addition space for 8 antiship missile and 4-6 anti-submarine torpedo tube, the flexible mission bay place under flight deck can fit with 4 heavyweight torpedo tube
    still, the current missile module and 2 foward boat bay could be replace by another module for 32 SYLVER VLS with 16 Aster 30 Missile & 64 CAMM missile, and 8 antiship missile
    there’re many option to upgrade Type 31 firepower, but remember that Type 31 is a type of lowcost frigate, so they have enough firepower as it cost, nothing seem underpower
    the question only is why the UK defense budget cut from year to year, i don’t know

    • SYLVER VLS cells cost as much as Mk. 41 cells at £millions for a set of 8! Sea Ceptor (CAMM) is cheap at £100k’s, launched from single cells costing only about £10k. RN could fill a lot more cells with CAMM on a T31 for the price of SYLVER set.
      You should only fill your very expensive hot launch cells, with very expensive missiles like Aster 30!

  30. We have a navy that seemingly doesn’t want to play sink my battleship. Maybe the RAF should follow suit and only equip Typhoons with bombs ?

    • That’s not the point. We’re finally arming our Type 26s properly, and we’re refitting the Type 45s to carry 48 Aster 30 and 24 CAMM. Type 31 will probably receive the 5 ISSGW sets from Type 23, type 45 might actually get its 16 Mk41 VLS cells to carry FC/ASW (though maybe it won’t be feasible due to short lifespan left), and Type 83 will, looking at the Type 26, probably be similar to a Tico.

      • The Type 26 has the potential to be well Armed, but that is dependent on how generous the Treasury/MOD is in deciding what to put in the MK41 VLS.

      • CAMM’s going where the MK41 cells are on a T45. I’m not trying to sound rude, but I can’t see them fitting one to rip it out for MK41 after what would be only a few years’ service.

          • Nah, they’re going in the gap between the gun and the current silo. That’s the space for the Mk41 cells, or at least, the intended space. The Mk41 gym currently occupies the space and by the sounds of it, the space will still be (partly) occupied by the gym after Ceptor’s fitted.

          • Yes, my bad. By ‘cells’ I meant space.

            I’m fully aware of what they’re armed with and what they’re not armed with – I have been in there often enough!

    • All our ships will have plenty of Seaceptor and anyone hit by a Seaceptor going at over three times the speed of sound is not going to have a good day. The kinetic energy of an almost hypersonic missile is staggering ( I did work out the kinetic energy in a Brahmos at Mach 3 and it was the same order of magnitude of an intercity 125 going full pelt). Added to the a Rotor filled with joy.

      You have to remember you don’t need to sink a ship, just stop it from doing what you don’t want it to do or prevent it from stoping you. Modern ships although very good at staying afloat are dependent on electronic equipment that is not very robust, kill its radar and you’ve killed the ship as an effective warship in most circumstances.

  31. I hear we plan to test lasers in the future on Mastiff and frigates, hopefully Type 31 could receive them!. Also people must remember the Type 31’s aren’t to sail into the SCS in wartime, there more for the Persian Gulf were there guns would come in handy against those Iranians FAC’s – there also meant to replace River B2’s on station, allowing them to come home and fufill fishery protection duties!

    • There are B2’s (or will be soon) heading to Asia area which will include SCS surely? We don’t have enough T-45/26’s to protect both CSG’s AND an LRG which would also need NGS so you either reduce CSG defence or don’t protect the booties? putting extra (36) sea ceptor and 4.5 on the T-31 would allow it to provide close support and NGS to the LRG or be used as goalkeeper for QE class

      • I doubt the Type 31 would accompany Carriers unless they were the Carribean or something, but they would make a useful escort for LRG, meaning the big guns (Type 45/26’s) can escort QEC and POW.

        A preferable compostition for LRG is:

        • Albion
        • Two/One T31’s
        • One T45
        • Wave-class
        • Minehunters

        Whilst a CSG peactime force woul probably consist of

        • Carrier
        • Two T45’s
        • Two t23’s/t26’s
        • Tide-class
        • Fort II class/FSS
        • 1 Astute-class
        • Other nations destoyers/frigates
        • potentially minehunters
          • 2x t-45 x 2 CSG’s (4), 1 t-45 x 1 LRG (1) makes 5 ? 1 x T-45 in refit = total 6, 2x T-26 x 2 CSG’s (4), 2 x T-26 on ASW/deterrence protection, 2x T-26 in refit = total 8 leaving 5 x t-31 = 3 x fwd deployed, 1 with LRG (not much point as can hardly defend itself let alone LPD & LSG and not against Subs (nor can the T-45) and 1 x T-31 in refit, B2’s doing UK patrol doesn’t leave much contingency or availability for NATO duties

        • I do think the Rule for three is going to hammer deployment plans for a bit, one on task, one working up or coming home and one in refit. Yes the RN often gets more sweat from its ships that that, but there is a reason CASD needs four hulls to guarantee a continuous deployed sub.

          The reality is that the 6 T45s will only reliably generate 2 hulls for the Carrier and that’s it. They may squeak one more occasionally but that’s asking a lot.

          With the tails 8 hulls should easily generate the 2 needed for the carrier as well as a TAPs.

          But in the long term the two amphibious groups as envisaged are going to take up the whole T31 fleet and not have much else as escorts until the T32. Comes along.

          I can see the Rivers 2s being forward deployed as singles for a long time, as the escort numbers just don’t add up with a carrier group and 2 LRGs needing escorts.

          With all the escorts having Seaceptor AAW of some description is covered, I’m assuming the LRGs will be heavy on merlin 2 to give a bit of credible ASW. Unless they get some tails for the T31s.

  32. Except the T31 has zero ASW capability (unlike Type 21 sonar, torpedoes) and as a good as zero surface to surface capability (type 21 exocet) against any significant surface threat. A budget ship designed by politicians down to a price to get the escort numbers up (for statistical appearances) and to look the part for the uneducated electorate, who they hope will not notice that the emperor has no clothes.

  33. I have seen most of the posts about the weapons fit and in many ways I agree the T31s seem to be a bit light on weapons. However this is what was possible with the budget. It does not mean to say this is how the T31s by 2040 will look.
    Lets look at possibilities that the MoD has of upgrading the T31s without breaking the bank.

    To achive this I need to make some assumtions, about our future build, first is that the T26 will be nearly all new equipment/weapons and sensor suites. The second is that the T83 will also have all new sensors. That all 13 of the T23s have bow mounted sonar type 2150, I’m not sure on this but I think they do. Finally that the below deck space on the T31 has empty spaces for future weapons fit.

    So now what we could do is as the T23s are being decommissioned some of the Sea Ceptors could go over to the T31s giving them 24, as we are building only 8 T26s there would be five bow mounted sonars left over, well they could go to the T31s. The intrim AShM there are five sets of these that will become available could go to the T31s. Finally when the T45s are being replaced in the late 2030s the S1850M could be installed on the T31. All of this is equipment that could be available and the T31 is more than capable to carry them. Yes, it could be possible to replace the 57mm with the 4.5in but only if there is enough ammunition available and the service life can be for 25 years, otherwise why bother. However, if we do then the 57mm could go to the Batch II OPVs, relocate the existing 30mm and add a second Port/Starboard possibly with LMM and a containerised RUAV not only have we upgraded the T31 but also the Batch IIs.

    The only new piece of equipment that could be needed for the T31 and should be thought about is a conainerised Towed Array Sonar, possibly not a top of the range Thales CAPTAS 4 but say an Ultra Sea Lancer. No offence Ultra.
    If we were to redesign the boat bays then we could use systems from companies such as ECA Group with its UMIS in a box or SH Defence with the Cube. We could for the Batch IIs, Albions and RFAs think about the MBDA contaninerised Self Protection Intergrated Minstral Module. A seven ton 10ft box with a twin missile launcher, four reloads and the control system. Even the Boeing Avenger system could be looked at. The RN said they were looking at PODS, well here are some PODS.

    So by the early 2030s the T31s could be a very well equipped multi role patrol/escort frigate with limited investment. It would not be a T26 with bells and whistles. Most of the cost would be time and labour as the equipment will come from ships being decommissioned.

    So thats how I would get the most out of the limited number of hulls that we have, utilising every piece of equipment that we have available whilst keeping it realistic and cost effective.

    • To be honest Ron I would say the mood music is all about increasing the lethality of the ships the RN, have so it would not surprise me at all if the T31 enters services with 24 Seaceptor and even at a stretch some form of dedicated ASuW missile, maybe even spear 3 which would be ideal for the sort of engagement these ships would likely end up in ( enclosed crowded seas).

    • “That all 13 of the T23s have bow mounted sonar type 2150,”

      No, not all T23’s will get it Ron. Existing T23’s have bow sonar type 2050.
      Only one T23 has been refitted with new sonar 2150 so far, and only 5 or 6 that get LIFEX will receive it.

    • I wouldn’t be to hasty in getting rid of the 57mm gun. In most respects it is a better and more flexible weapon system than the 40mm, For starters it can use the guided ORKA round, plus it has a longer effective range and the HE rounds carry twice the punch. If anything and if the Treasury cough up the cash for a BAe Mk45 Mod 4 5″ gun. Then yes I’d have the 57 replaced in the A position with a 5″, but move the 57 to the B position. I would also replace the 40-mm on the hangar roof with another 57, using the pedestal magazine mount.

      The question then is what to use for close in protection as the next layer behind the 57 systems, that can be mounted on the steps either side of the hangar? Should it be the DS30 or the 40? Where the 40mm can be used against most air threats, whereas the DS30 can’t. But the DS30 can be used manually when there’s no ship’s power, whereas the 40mm can’t.

      A ship so armed would be a fleet asset rather than something only available for policing. With the heavier gun armament it can better support the amphibious groups.

      • Hi Daveyb, I agree in many ways I like the 57mm/40mm combination. I also agree if money was not an option then in the future the BAE 5in gun could replace the 57mm. I was looking at possibilities with cost constraints and using equipment that is available. For example is it a good use of the 5in gun on the T26? The T26 will almost always be working with the carrier group where as the T31 will be an independent command or work with an Amphibious group. Is there life left in the 4.5in and the stored ammo for the next 25years? If yes them why scrap them why not use them until we can afford something better. I understand the 30mm/40mm issue we do need to find a solution to a ships CIWS ability to be able to operate independently of a ships main power supply. During the conflicts the RN has had over the past 100 years have lost several ships due to power failure to the air defence system. Or for that matter power failure to ships pumping systems. Every ship is a compromise between defence-offence and manouverability. The T31 is or has the ability to be a very capable ship as I said before not a T26 but a good escort/patrol frigate but we need to equip them to do the job not just in times of peace but for times of war.

  34. At DSEI 2021 this year, Babcock showed a model of a T31/Arrowhead 140 with a number of armament configurations. There were a number of Babcock spokespeople who kept referring to it as the Type 31, not just the Arrowhead. It even had a Merlin and T31 on the flight deck. Perhaps it was PR spin on their part, as they are bidding for the T32 program and were also bidding for the indonesian and Greek frigate requirements.

    The model as shown had initially 8 canister launched surface to surface missiles (SSM), a 24 round Sea Ceptor silo, a 57mm gun in the A position, a 40mm in the B position, another 40mm in the X position on top of the hangar. Along with an assortment of machine guns. However, later in the day the ship had changed slightly in that it now had a pair of DS30s mounted either side of the hangar just below the rear 40mm mount. This was when there were a lot of senior UK officers milling about. What was also interesting is that a SMART-L looking radar had been added. Though I couldn’t see if it still had the same SeaCeptor silo or if the SSMs had been replaced with a VLS silo. But it did still had the NS100 radar on the forward mast.

    That was probably a bit of a sales pitch by Babcock, looking at what the Type 31 could be. Especially as the T31 will come with a pretty frugal armament to begin with, though I bet it wont stay like that for long. If the Type 32 is an upspec’d T31, how long will it be before the T31 becomes a T32? A fleet of 10 T32s would be great in anyone’s Navy.

    • Interesting observations. I think it’s the mock-ups and associated announcements that pose the real crux of the issue for most people here.

      We have known for a while that they’ll use a 57mm/2.2″ and 40mm/1.6″ loadout for guns, the Sea Ceptor fit and a helicopter. I suspect I speak for the majority of people here when I say that we want to know how MANY Sea Ceptor silos will be fitted, whether they’ll be fitted with canisters (or if that’s an ambition) and if some DS30s will be added in the position that you mentioned. That last point isn’t a stretch – perhaps some mounts will be recycled from T23. I’ll also admit… the thought of five cannons firing off at once makes me giddy!

      Yeah, it’s probably part of a sales pitch, or potentially demonstrating what a T32 could be. It’s early days yet, but the fact that HMG didn’t commit to a ‘batch two’ Type 31 as many of us suggested leads me to believe that it really is going to have a similar but different role. If not, then why the change in designation? I strongly suspect that it will use the same or a similar hull form as Type 31 (just like the frigates of the 50s and 60s) with perhaps a greater emphasis on supporting automous platforms and a slight upgrade in armament/equipment fit. Perhaps a comparison would be the Type 14/41/61 plans or the evolution of ships that became Leander.

      I almost want to say that Type 31 will be required to take on the roles of Montrose and some of the B2 Rivers, while Type 32 will be a ‘flexible friend’ that can be configured to be attached to carrier groups, littoral groups and standing deployments – such as providing MCM or humanitarian support. Let’s call it a General-Purpose Autonomous-Support Frigate. 😎

      • yep the number of Seaceptor will be interesting. As Seaceptor will have a pretty potent anti surface role ( at three time the speed of sound the warhead is not the main delivery of energy) numbers will really matter, a type 31 with only 12 missiles for AAW and Anti surface work is going to run out quickly, 24 missiles will allow for more liberal use against surface threats.

    • The 30mm seems an odd blind alley. What can it do that a 40mm can do far better & at longer range? 30mm has practically no AA ability, which is a criminal waste of deck space & topweight.

      • Possibly, the one advantage the DS30 has over the 40, is that it can also be used manually. Which may not sound like much, but what if the ship has a electrical failure or the datalink between the CMS and weapon system is damaged? At least the DS30 can be made operational in these circumstances. I’m not totally certain, but I don’t think the 40 has a manual mode?

        • Yes it has a manual mode but wear ear duffs as the noise will damage your hearing…180db impulse per round!

          If you lose the cms/optical sight you go manual . If you lose main power to a 30mm it also has a 30 min battery built in that is equally important as you can keep firing whilst you rig emergency power to it. You can do a lot of jury rig cable runs in 30mins!

    • That T31/Arrowhead 140 model at DSEI has been around for years. If you were really at the show you would have noticed right next to the model all the different weapons & sensor options that can be swapped in and out like Lego. The sales folks will add or remove anything you want to see.The configuration at any time means exactly nothing.

      https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DSEI-2021-Babcock-sells-Arrowhead-140-frigate-design-licence-to-Indonesia.jpg

      • Someone who really did go to the show, asked the Babcock’s folk on the stand how many Sea Ceptor VLS would be fitted to the UK’s Type 31. They replied that the Navy were still deciding. I’m sure it will come down to how much money is left in the T31 budget. We were told earlier that the radar might be upgraded to a NS200 under the same conditions i.e. if money is left.

      • I agree, but you missed the point! When the bigwigs were coming to the stand, the Babcock people changed the configuration of the “Arrowhead/T31”. As you’ve shown in the image above, the rear mast was replaced with the module that looks like a SMART-L radar and a pair of DS30 looking guns were put on the steps either side of the hangar. As it was so crowded, I couldn’t see what other changes they made, as I was chatting with the Themis people opposite the Babcock stand. The Navy bods in particular were chatting with Babcock for a good couple of hours. I think it highly likely that Babcock were showing what their rendition of a Type 32 would look like, if it was based on a Type 31.

        • I didn’t miss your point I just thought it was really weak. Rather like the idea that the Royal Navy has to go to a show to find out Type 31 or 32 options.

  35. Quite frankly I am baffled, the RFA is already struggling to support the RN with its logistical requirements for arms and ammunition now they will have to carry 4.5 inch rounds, 5 inch rounds, 57mm rounds, 40 mm rounds, 30 mm round and 20mm rounds then there is the missile reloads. Why are we handicapping our selves once again instead of consolidating on 2 or 3 types of guns 5″ or 4.5″ and a 30mm or 40mm this would make the logistical support far less complicated and far cheaper.

    • I suppose the plan is get rid of the 4.5 inch as soon as the last T23 leaves service with the 45s getting a new gun. You would imagine that at some point the lower cal guns will be changed out for 40mm.

      you would have to ask yourself if our T45 fleet may be better served by a fit of 57mm and 40mm to really double down on its AAW role as well as increase its self protection against swarm tactics. After all is a T45 ever going to undertaking navel gunfire support ? Now we are always planning to have an active carrier battle group and two amphib groups.

      i think a case for a fleet with 5inch, 57mm and 40mm could be made.

      • Hello Jonathan, You are right but it seems at the moment there are no plans going forward and the logistical support is an after thought!

        • Yes it does seem that way at present. Which is odd because most of the best savings come from removing a whole piece of equipment. After all it’s not just the logistic tail you can remove it’s also the training pipeline and skill set, which is always expensive to keep up and Labour intensive, especially if your struggling to retain skilled people.

  36. I suspect that the reason for such a low armament fit on launching is that they have an eye on the future weapon systems currently being trialled such as rail guns and energy weapons. Besides, last I checked we aren’t actually at war with anyone so these ships will spend more time hosting cocktail parties, disaster relief or anti piracy patrols.

  37. 2 x mortars mk 10 on the quarter deck twin 4.5 gun and 2 x seacat missiles launches ..all that is needed save some money did for us we never complained

  38. Water pistol, potatoes guns fire works and catapults to fire snowballs in colder climates when the Government realise they haven’t got the money for the full armament.

  39. The T31 is supposed to be off doing low-intensity activities like drug interdiction patrols, so for that role it seems reasonable if it takes that workload off the T26. I guess the problems arise if we suddenly need to deal with a bigger crisis, and are then left scrambling to fit more stuff to every hull we have.

    The UK has taken risks with reduced capability as a cost saving measure, and we’ve got by (with things like the gap between Nimrod and P-8 and all the ‘for but not with’ stuff), it is a worry that one day we’ll get caught out.

    • They are not that low intensity, a medium gun, 2 modern 40mm cannon, cutting edge point/short range area defence missile, that can also act as a Mach 3 ASuW weapon, Able to take a medium rotor up to the size of a merlin, mission bays ( space for future unmanned vehicles), space for Marines and ribs. I assume the soft kill will be up to the usual RN standards.

      These are going to be ideal for enclosed and busy waters.

      Yes it’s probably important they get 24 Seaceptor, which I’m betting they will as it will give them more use as Escorts. Some form of Heavyweight anti ship missile would be a nice to have, but the truth is the RN has never ever used one of these in anger, would not likely be used due to ROE in the sort of operations theses ships will be part of, so it’s right at the low end of bells and whistle needs

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here